Apparatus and method for reconstructing an image using high-energy-based data

ABSTRACT

An apparatus reconstructs an image using high energy-based data regarding a scene provides access to first image-capture data regarding the scene that is formed using a first image-capture modality and to second image-capture data that is formed using a second (different) image-capture modality. A control circuit executes an iterative image reconstruction process that establishes a first and a second image-representation channel, a fidelity error measure that measures inconsistency of the image as compared to first image-capture data and second image-capture data, and a prior-penalty term that scores the image based on a priori likelihood or desirability using, at least in part, for each of a plurality of pixels, a non-separable matrix-penalty of a Jacobian-matrix of the image at that pixel, such as nuclear norm. The control circuit further utilizes, in combination with the foregoing, an iterative process to generate a reconstructed image that at least approximately minimizes a combination of the fidelity error measure and the prior-penalty term.

RELATED APPLICATION(S)

This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional application No.61/899,672, filed Nov. 4, 2013, which is incorporated by reference inits entirety herein.

TECHNICAL FIELD

These teachings relate generally to reconstructing images using highenergy-based data as regards a particular scene, and in particular toapproaches that rely upon statistical likelihoods.

BACKGROUND

The use of statistical reconstruction to facilitate iterativereconstruction of an image through a series of consecutive estimationsand/or guesses is a known area of prior art endeavor. Such an iterativestatistical reconstruction process typically works by characterizingcandidate reconstructed image data with respect to an overall likelihoodof accuracy (and/or some other metric of choice) to thereby identify abest selection.

Transitions in an image (for example, from one object to another suchas, in an x-ray image, from bone to water, or from less-dense bone tomore-dense bone) often represent a considerable challenge in theseregards. Generally speaking, an iterative statistical reconstructionprocess works favorably when configured to eschew unrealistictransitions. Furthermore, measurement noise can lead to falsetransitions appearing in the data, and in general a good statisticalreconstruction process should account for the measurement noise, ineffect removing or reducing the false transitions. That said,transitions, even abrupt transitions, can and do occur in the realworld, and in an ideal imaging system those real transitions should bepreserved. Accordingly, accommodating real transitions (especiallyabrupt transitions) but downgrading a candidate reconstructed imagehaving one or more false transitions is both a goal and a challenge.

Statistical reconstruction also generally requires the use ofoptimization algorithms. Many approaches to optimization in theseregards are known. In many cases the practical applicability of a givenapproach in a given application setting is limited by the computationalintensity dictated by that setting and approach. While many approachesare ultimately capable of providing an acceptable result, from apractical standpoint in a real-life application setting many approacheseither take too much time to converge, require too much in the way ofcomputational resources to physically implement for a reasonable cost,are unstable or unpredictable, and/or are inflexible with the types ofstatistical models that they can accommodate.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The above needs are at least partially met through provision of theapparatus and method for reconstructing an image using high energy-baseddata described in the following detailed description, particularly whenstudied in conjunction with the drawings, wherein:

FIG. 1 comprises a flow diagram as configured in accordance with variousembodiments of these teachings;

FIG. 2 comprises a block diagram as configured in accordance withvarious embodiments of these teachings; and

FIGS. 3A-F comprise block diagram representations of various pixelneighborhoods.

Elements in the figures are illustrated for simplicity and clarity andhave not necessarily been drawn to scale. For example, the dimensionsand/or relative positioning of some of the elements in the figures maybe exaggerated relative to other elements to help to improveunderstanding of various embodiments of the present teachings. Also,common but well-understood elements that are useful or necessary in acommercially feasible embodiment are often not depicted in order tofacilitate a less obstructed view of these various embodiments of thepresent teachings. Certain actions and/or steps may be described ordepicted in a particular order of occurrence while those skilled in theart will understand that such specificity with respect to sequence isnot actually required. The terms and expressions used herein have theordinary technical meaning as is accorded to such terms and expressionsby persons skilled in the technical field as set forth above exceptwhere different specific meanings have otherwise been set forth herein.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

There are many existing approaches to statistical reconstruction methodsfor X-ray imaging, and a key difference between them is how they handletransitions. In particular, many existing approaches penalize abrupttransitions and prefer smooth transitions, and such methods tend todestroy true abrupt transitions in the images. Better methods are ableto penalize a lot of the false transitions yet still preserve some realtransitions, especially large abrupt transitions. However, most of thesemethods are designed for use with a single imaging spectrum.

Alternatively, many modern X-ray imaging systems use multiple spectra tobe able to discriminate different types of materials beyond what theyare capable of with just a single spectrum. In such multi-spectral X-raysystems, when considering abrupt transitions, I have determined that itis important to consider not only transitions in attenuation, but alsotransitions in material type. More specifically, I have determined thatit can be important to consider transitions in the higher dimensionalmaterial signature in the multi-spectral measurements (as opposed toscalar attenuation values, density values, or Hounsfield-unit values),and furthermore that it can be important to consider transitions inmultiple material channels and in multiple spatial directions, and toconsider these transitions together in a coupled way that is notseparable by channel or spatial direction. Existing approaches are ingeneral inadequate in this regard.

Generally speaking, pursuant to these various embodiments an apparatusfor reconstructing an image using high energy-based data regarding ascene (such as a portion of a patient being examined or a cargocontainer being inspected) includes a data interface and a controlcircuit operably coupled thereto. The data interface provides access to,at least in part, first image-capture data regarding the scene, whichfirst image-capture data is formed using a first image-capture modality.The data interface also provides access to second image-capture dataregarding the scene, which second image-capture data is formed using asecond image-capture modality that is different from the firstimage-capture modality.

The control circuit executes an iterative image reconstruction process.This activity includes establishing a first and a secondimage-representation channel and establishing a fidelity error measurethat, for any image containing first image-representation channel dataand second image-representation channel data, measures inconsistency ofthe image as compared to the first image-capture data and the secondimage-capture data. The control circuit also establishes a prior-penaltyterm that, for any image containing first image-representation channeldata and second image-representation channel data, scores the imagebased on a priori likelihood or desirability using, at least in part,for each of a plurality of pixels, a non-separable matrix-penalty of aJacobian matrix at that pixel. The control circuit further utilizes, incombination with the foregoing, an iterative process to generate areconstructed image that at least approximately minimizes a combinationof the fidelity error measure and the prior-penalty term. By oneapproach, the non-separable matrix-penalty is a function of the singularvalues of the Jacobian matrix. More specifically, the non-separablematrix-penalty can be the nuclear norm of the Jacobian matrix, which isthe sum of the singular values of the Jacobian matrix.

These teachings are highly flexible in practice and will accommodate avariety of approaches as regards the foregoing. By one approach, forexample, the first image-capture modality can comprise using a firstlevel of x-ray energy while the second image-capture modality comprisesusing a second level of x-ray energy that is substantially differentfrom the first level of x-ray energy.

By one approach, the control circuit effects the foregoing by using thefirst image-representation channel and the second image-representationchannel to evaluate individual pixels in the image-representation datawith respect to statistical likelihood. This can comprise, for example,assessing a gradient for at least some of the individual pixels ascompared to their corresponding neighboring pixels. More particularly,the control circuit can calculate a function of both the gradient ascorresponds to the first image-representation channel for a given pixeland the gradient as corresponds to the second image-representationchannel for the same given pixel by, at least in part, forming acorresponding Jacobian matrix that the control circuit then employs tocalculate a function of the singular values of the Jacobian matrix, suchas the aforementioned nuclear norm. By another approach, the controlcircuit can in calculate a function of the singular values of theJacobian matrix, but can combine some steps in the calculations so thatthe Jacobian matrix or the singular values are not explicitly formedalong the way.

So configured, these teachings employ the above described disparateinputs regarding a given scene when reconstructing an image ascorresponds to that scene. By one approach, for example, the controlcircuit utilizes that disparate input to effectively evaluate candidatereconstructions by viewing at least some components of thosereconstructions as a function of their material constitution. As a verysimple illustrative example in these regards, the control circuit canevaluate the accuracy and/or desirability of reconstructed patientx-ray-based images upon treating the components of those reconstructedimages as constituting either bone or not-bone.

These teachings can also readily handle an arbitrary number of imagerepresentation channels, for which prior art can be inadequate. Forexample, a method that quantifies the ratio between two channels can bedifficult to extend to a third channel. In contrast, vector-penalties ofsingular values of a matrix can be straightforward to apply to singularvalue vectors of any dimension, and thus can be used for Jacobians ofany dimension and for any number of material channels.

Prior art approaches tend to use separable penalties and/or a smallnumber of material channels (usually both), so that any givencalculation employs relatively low-dimensional matrices or vectors(typically at most 2×1 vectors), and higher-dimensionality matricesmight be viewed as prohibitive. However, these teachings will also allowhigher-dimensionality matrices to be accurately and quickly calculatedand utilized as compared to prior art approaches that would employ thesame enabling hardware. Generally speaking, these teachings will provideresultant reconstructed images that are either equal to results attainedthrough common prior art practices or, perhaps more typically, betterwithout necessarily or unduly prolonging the calculation of thoseresults.

These and other benefits may become clearer upon making a thoroughreview and study of the following detailed description. Referring now tothe drawings, and in particular to FIG. 1, an illustrative process 100that is compatible with many of these teachings will now be presented.

For the sake of an illustrative example this description will presumethat a control circuit of choice carries out the described process 100.FIG. 2 provides an illustrative example in these regards. In thisexample the enabling apparatus 200 includes a control circuit 201 thatoperably couples to a memory 202 and a user interface 203. Such acontrol circuit 201 can comprise a fixed-purpose hard-wired platform(such as an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC)) or cancomprise a partially or wholly programmable platform (such as afield-programmable gate array or a fully-programmable microcontroller ormicroprocessor). These architectural options are well known andunderstood in the art and require no further description here. Thiscontrol circuit 201 is configured (for example, by using correspondingprogramming as will be well understood by those skilled in the art) tocarry out one or more of the steps, actions, and/or functions describedherein.

The memory 202 may be integral to the control circuit 201 or can bephysically discrete (in whole or in part) from the control circuit 201as desired. This memory 202 can also be local with respect to thecontrol circuit 201 (where, for example, both share a common circuitboard, chassis, power supply, and/or housing) or can be partially orwholly remote with respect to the control circuit 201 (where, forexample, the memory 202 is physically located in another facility,metropolitan area, or even country as compared to the control circuit201).

This memory 202 can serve, for example, to non-transitorily store thecomputer instructions that, when executed by the control circuit 201,cause the control circuit 201 to behave as described herein. (As usedherein, this reference to “non-transitorily” will be understood to referto a non-ephemeral state for the stored contents (and hence excludeswhen the stored contents merely constitute signals or waves) rather thanvolatility of the storage media itself and hence includes bothnon-volatile memory (such as read-only memory (ROM) as well as volatilememory (such as an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM).)

The user interface 203 can comprise any of a variety of user-inputmechanisms (such as, but not limited to, keyboards and keypads,cursor-control devices, touch-sensitive displays, speech-recognitioninterfaces, gesture-recognition interfaces, and so forth) and/oruser-output mechanisms (such as, but not limited to, visual displays,audio transducers, printers, and so forth) to facilitate receivinginformation and/or instructions from a user and/or providing informationto a user.

The data interface 204 provides a link or conduit by which the controlcircuit 201 receives useful data. This data interface 204 may simply bean on-board communicative conduit between the control circuit 201 and acorresponding memory 205 (which memory 205 may or may not be part of theaforementioned memory 202 as desired). By another approach this datainterface 204 may comprise, for example, a network interface thatcommunicatively couples the control circuit 201 to one or more datasources via, for example, a local area network and/or an extranet suchas the Internet.

In this illustrative example the data interface 204 operably couples toa memory 205 that includes image-capture data 206 as regards aparticular scene of interest. More particularly, the memory 205 includesa plurality of image-capture data 206 for each such scene. For purposesof simplicity and clarity, this description will presume that there arefirst and second image-capture data 206. Although these instances ofimage-capture data 206 correspond to a same scene, these instances ofimage-capture data 206 were each formed using a different image-capturemodality. In particular, in this example, the first image-capture dataregarding the scene was formed using a first image capture modality 207while the second image capture data regarding the scene was formed usinga second image-capture modality 207 that is different from the firstimage-capture modality 207.

These teachings are highly flexible in these regards and willaccommodate considerable variety with respect to these differingimage-capture modalities. As one simple example, the first image-capturemodality may comprise using 120 kV x-ray spectra to capturecorresponding first image-capture data as regards the scene and thesecond image-capture modality comprising using 140 kV x-ray spectra tocapture corresponding second image-capture data as regards the scene.

As another example, the first image-capture modality may comprisedetecting incoming X-rays with a first region or layer of detectormaterial, and the second image-capture modality comprising detectingincoming the same X-ray beam with a second region or layer of detectormaterial on the same detector. As yet another example, the first andsecond image-capture modalities may comprise different outputs from apulse-height discriminating detector. Again, numerous possibilities inthese regards can be readily accommodated by these teachings. Theseteachings can also be used with more than two modalities. For example,in the above example with 120 kV and 140 kV x-ray spectra, a thirdmodality may comprise 95 kV x-rays, or another 120 kV beam withdifferent filtration. Additionally, the above techniques may becombined, such as by using multiple X-ray source energies in conjunctionwith energy-sensitive detectors. If desired, these teachings can readilyaccommodate a number of modalities much larger than two.

As described below in more detail, the control circuit 201 is configuredto employ an iterative process to generate a reconstructed image 208that at least approximately minimizes a combination of a fidelity errormeasure and a prior-penalty term by, at least in part, processing aJacobian matrix to calculate a matrix-penalty function of the Jacobianmatrix, such as nuclear norm.

Referring again to FIG. 1, at block 101 the control circuit establishesa first image-representation channel and, at block two, a secondimage-representation channel. These teachings are flexible in theseregards. By one approach, for example, the first image-representationchannel relates to a first basis material and the secondimage-representation channel relates to a second basis material. A basismaterial can be a real or imaginary material, and corresponds to somematerial component, and any real material can be decomposed, at leastapproximately, into a sum of basis materials.

By one approach, these bases may be actual materials. For example, onemay choose water and bone as the two bases, and every material isreconstructed into an equivalent amount of water and bone. As othermaterials may be present, it is possible that some other material may bedecomposed into, for example, over 100% water in conjunction with anegative amount of bone.

By another approach, these bases may relate to physical interactions.For example, the first basis may correspond to an amount ofphoto-electric interaction, and the second basis may correspond to anamount of Compton interaction. In either of those two approaches, thesystem may explicitly form basis functions that describe some physicalinteraction characteristics. For example, for X-ray imaging with waterand bone bases, the energy-dependent X-ray attenuation of some materialμ(E) is modeled as μ(E)=α_(water) μ_(water)(E)+α_(bone) μ_(bone)(E),where the μ_(water) and μ_(bone) curves are known ahead of time, andα_(water) and α_(bone) are the two image-representation channels thatare calculated by the reconstruction algorithm. Similarly, forphoto-electric and Compton bases, each material is decomposed intoμ(E)=α_(water) μ_(water)(E)+α_(bone) μ_(bone)(E) where α_(water) andα_(bone) are the two image-representation channels.

By another approach, the basis materials can be formed by constructingmathematically appealing basis functions, without a real physicalinterpretation for each basis material. For example, one can design aset of basis functions to be an approximate mathematical basis for theset of commonly occurring μ(E) functions (for example, by using asingular value decomposition), so that most any physically plausibleμ(E) can be reasonably well approximated using those basis materials.

By a fourth approach, the material bases may relate to imaging spectrum.For example, the first basis may correspond directly to the firstimaging modality, and the second basis may correspond directly to thesecond imaging modality. This may be done explicitly, similar to theabove examples, by using different pre-computed μ for each basis (thoughμ₁ and μ₂ might now be scalar-valued rather than curves).

Or alternatively, the bases may be only implicitly used rather thanexplicitly defined. This approach can also be used when the physicalinterpretation of the channels is unknown by the image processingsystem. For example, this approach can be used to build a black-boxreconstructor that accepts multi-spectral data but requires no knowledgeof the actual characteristics of the spectra used to produce that data.(As an extreme example, even if an imaging system has already performedmulti-modality fusion and rendered the data as a conventional red,green, and blue (RGB) image, the present teachings can still be used toreduce noise in that image by processing the red, green, and bluechannels, even though their physical interpretations are lost.)

At block 103 the control circuit 201 establishes a fidelity errormeasure that, for any image containing first image-representationchannel data and second image-representation channel data, measuresinconsistency of the image as compared to first image-capture dataregarding the scene informed using the aforementioned firstimage-capture modality and second image-capture data regarding the sceneformed using the aforementioned second image-capture modality that isdifferent from the first image-capture modality. By one approach, thisdifference between modalities can be one of degree (where, for example,both modalities employ x-ray spectra but differ with respect to theenergy level), a difference of kind, or one of both kind and degree asdesired.

At block 104 the control circuit 201 establishes a prior-penalty termthat, for any image containing first image-representation channel dataand second image-representation channel data, scores the image based ona priori likelihood or desirability using, at least in part, for each ofa plurality of pixels, a non-separable matrix-penalty of a Jacobianmatrix at that pixel. (As used herein, this reference to “likelihood”shall be understood to refer to a statistical likelihood and thisreference to “desirability” shall be understood to refer to one or moremetrics as correlate to one or more objective or subjective measures ofaesthetic and/or interpretive rendering criterion (such as diagnosticinformation of interest or information regarding diagnostic capability).

At block 105 the control circuit 201 then uses an iterative process ofchoice to generate a reconstructed image that at least approximatelyminimizes a combination of the aforementioned fidelity error measure andthe aforementioned prior-penalty term by, at least in part, processing aJacobian matrix to calculate a non-separable matrix penalty. Soconfigured, the nuclear norm facilitates assessing an abrupt transitionin an image, at least in part, by assessing whether a corresponding edgefor that transition as considered with respect to the firstimage-representation channel registers with the corresponding edge forthat transition as considered with respect to the secondimage-representation channel. When true, the likelihood increases thatthe abrupt transition is, in fact, a valid feature of the image.

By one approach, and in accordance with the foregoing, the controlcircuit 201 generates the reconstructed image 208 by, at least in part,using the first image-representation channel and the secondimage-representation channel to evaluate individual pixels in theimage-representation data with respect to statistical likelihood. Thisevaluation of individual pixels can comprise, at least in part,assessing a gradient for at least some of the individual pixels ascompared to their corresponding neighboring pixels. (In mathematics, thegradient is a generalization of the usual concept of derivative of afunction in one dimension to a function in several dimensions. If ƒ(x₁,. . . , x_(n)) is a differentiable, scalar-valued function of standardCartesian coordinates in Euclidean space, its gradient is the vectorwhose components are the n partial derivatives of ƒ. It is thus avector-valued function. Furthermore, if the function ƒ is avector-valued function so that at point x, ƒ(x₁, . . . , x_(n))=(v₁, . .. , v_(m)), then for each of the m components, there is a separategradient, which itself has n components. In that case the derivative offat any x can be arranged as an m×n matrix (or an n×m matrix) which isoften referred to as the Jacobian matrix. We refer to n as differentdirections, and m as different channels.)

For example, the control circuit 201 can calculate a function of boththe gradient as corresponds to the first image-representation channelfor a given pixel and the gradient as corresponds to the secondimage-representation channel for a same given pixel, at least in part,by forming a corresponding Jacobian matrix that the control circuit 201then employs to calculate the aforementioned non-separablematrix-penalty. (The Jacobian is the generalization of the gradient forvector-valued functions of several variables and differentiable mapsbetween Euclidean spaces. In vector calculus, a Jacobian matrix is thematrix of all first-order partial derivatives of a vector-valuedfunction.) In prior art, typically the gradient of an image iscalculated by a finite difference operator.

This is illustrated for 2D in FIG. 3A. Each pixel has two relevantneighbors, and n=2. Alternatively, the applicant has determined that inmany cases, extended Jacobians can give better image quality, where anextended Jacobian uses something larger than the basic finite-differenceoperator. FIG. 3B depicts, for example, a cross-shaped neighborhood,which uses four neighbors, so n=4. FIG. 3C depicts a 3×3 box-shapedneighborhood, for which n=3. FIG. 3D depicts a 5×5 circle-shapedneighborhood, for which n=20. Similarly, for three dimensional images,FIG. 3E depicts the standard finite-difference operator, with n=3, andFIG. 3F depicts a 3D cross-shaped neighborhood, with n=6.

There are many other reasonable neighborhoods to use for extendedJacobians. Furthermore, these teachings will show how to accommodatelarge Jacobian matrices (for example 20×2 or 20×3 Jacobian matrices)with reasonable computational load. Note that we use the term “Jacobianmatrix” to include both conventional Jacobians as well as extendedJacobians.

In general, we define a “matrix-penalty” to mean a function that inputsa matrix and outputs a single scalar score for that matrix (wheretypically “good” matrices get a small-valued score and larger valuesindicate a worse matrix). When applying a matrix penalty to a Jacobianmatrix, prior art approaches typically construct matrix-penalties byanalyzing separate channels or directions (or both) in relativeisolation. When a matrix-penalty of a Jacobian matrix can be calculatedby separately calculating a penalty for each channel in the Jacobianmatrix and then summing the results, we call that a channel-separablematrix-penalty. When a matrix-penalty of a Jacobian matrix can becalculated by separately calculating a penalty for each direction in theJacobian matrix, then summing the results, we call that adirection-separable matrix-penalty. When a matrix-penalty of a Jacobianmatrix is neither channel-separable nor direction-separable, we callthat a non-separable penalty.

The teachings described here can be used with penalties that arechannel-separable, direction-separable, both channel- anddirection-separable, or that are non-separable. Whiledirection-separable techniques have been used in prior art, theapplicant has determined that non-separable techniques are able tobetter link the gradients for different directions and differentchannels. In particular, a particularly effective class of non-separablematrix-penalty is to penalize a function of the singular values of theJacobian matrix. In particular, the nuclear norm, which is the sum ofthe singular values of a matrix, can be quite effective.

As noted above, by one approach the image-representation channels cancomprise corresponding material bases. As one useful example in theseregards, the establishment of a first image-representation channel cancomprise establishing a first material basis and the aforementionedestablishment of a second image-representation channel can compriseestablishing a second corresponding material basis. In such a case thefirst image-representation channel describes image data as relates tothe first material basis and the second image-representation channeldescribes image data as relates to the second material basis. Soconfigured, these teachings essentially operate to encourage orotherwise favor candidate reconstructed images comprised of pixels thattend to have neighboring pixels made of the same material. For example,pixels representing bone material in a radiographic image are favoredthat themselves have neighboring pixels made of bone material as well.

Put simply, the present teachings leverage the fact that activity on thefirst material basis should usually appear similar to activity on thesecond material basis (in particular, for most pixels in an image, agradient for a pixel should change in the same way for each materialbasis) and anomalies in those regards help to identify transitions thatare less likely to be accurate. In particular, whereas channel-separableJacobian matrix penalties do not encourage each material basis to changein tandem, and direction-separable Jacobian matrix penalties do notencourage the material change to be the same in each direction,non-separable matrix penalties, and in particular penalties based onsingular values of the Jacobian matrix, encourage change to beproportional for all materials in all directions, which helps tomitigate false transitions in material. Furthermore, nuclear normmitigates false transitions in material while also allowing occasionalabrupt transitions when the data supports them, since it essentiallyassigns the same penalty to transitions regardless of whether they aresmooth or abrupt.

In many cases it will be beneficial for the aforementioned iterativeprocess to comprise an iterative statistical reconstruction process.Such an iterative statistical image reconstruction process can comprise,if desired, a computed tomography reconstruction process or aradiography-image reconstruction process. Other possibilities can beaccommodated as well if desired.

To illustrate by way of example, and without intending any particularlimitations by way of the specificity of the following examples, somefurther details in these same regards are now presented.

In particular, this example provides details regarding how to performreconstruction of a material-descriptor image as described in terms of ageneral projection operator. By one approach, the projection operator isa tomographic projection operator that sums along paths in thereconstructed image, in effect mapping densities to ray-sums (or somefunction thereof). Such tomographic projection operators are known inthe art, and any tomographic forward/backward projector pair can be usedto implement these teachings. In this approach, these teachings areapplicable in a computed tomography setting and more specifically in amulti-spectral computed tomography setting. By specifying theappropriate projection operator, this approach can accommodate or enablea number of desirable features in CT reconstruction, including novelgeometries, sparse detectors, tomosynthesis, few views, or unusualtrajectories as well as alternate modalities and/or multi-modalityfusion.

By another approach, the projection operator can map ray-sums toray-sums, for example by performing a simple resampling, by selectingout sparse data (i.e. masking out missing data), by applying a blurfunction (to model detector blur), or by simply doing nothing (which inpractice can be implemented by simply omitting the projection operator).This approach can serve in a radiography (or even a fluoroscopy)medical-services application as well as an industrial or securityapplication setting. By specifying the appropriate projection operator,this approach can accommodate or enable a number of desirable featuresin radiography, including denoising, deblurring, super-resolution,restoring missing data, fluoroscopy enhancement,material-discrimination, dual-energy (or multi-energy) digitalsubtraction angiography, virtual bone subtraction, and multi-spectralfusion.

In this example, expected transmission for a material descriptor α is

$\begin{matrix}{{{\overset{\_}{T}}_{k}(\alpha)} = {{\sum\limits_{i}\;{\phi_{i,k}{\mathbb{e}}^{- {\sum\limits_{j}\;{\mu_{i,j}\alpha}}}}} = {\sum\limits_{i}\;{\phi_{i,k}{\mathbb{e}}^{- {\langle{{- \mu},\alpha}\rangle}}}}}} & (1)\end{matrix}$where k is spectrum index, i is like energy bin, φ is like spectrum, μis like attenuation curve, j is like material index, and α describes thematerial. (We say “like” because in many cases these can be representedin a more compact mathematical form than the physical entity thatinspires them.) Poisson log likelihood for measured data T and expected(“truth”) signal T are (to within an additive constant)log Pr[T|T ]=ω( T−T log T )  (2)where ω=SNR_(o) ² (similar to weighted least-squares fitting) and/orSNR_(o) is signal-to-noise ratio through air (i.e. when T=1). Then wecan write multi-spectral log likelihood as a function of α as follows:

$\begin{matrix}{{\ell(\alpha)} = {{{- \log}\;{\Pr\left\lbrack T \middle| {\overset{\_}{T}(\alpha)} \right\rbrack}} = {\sum\limits_{k}\;{{\omega_{k}\left( {{{\overset{\_}{T}}_{k}(\alpha)} - {T_{k}\log\;{{\overset{\_}{T}}_{k}(\alpha)}}} \right)}.}}}} & (3)\end{matrix}$

If α is an image formed of pixels, then the image likelihood is

$\begin{matrix}{{L(\alpha)} = {\sum\limits_{x}\;{\ell\left( {\alpha(x)} \right)}}} & (4)\end{matrix}$where x is a pixel.

We can thus pose statistically reconstructed multi-spectral radiographyor multi-spectral computed tomography by the problem

$\begin{matrix}{X^{*} = {{\underset{X}{argmin}\omega_{p}{L({PX})}} + {\omega_{v}{V(X)}} + {\omega_{c}{\overset{\_}{C}(X)}}}} & (5)\end{matrix}$where V is some regularization term, C is a constraint or feasibilitymeasure (generally the indicator function of a constraint such asnon-negativity), and P is a projection operator. For computedtomography, X corresponds to a density map (with separate densities foreach material basis), and P is typically a forward fan-beam or cone-beamtransform (and P^(t) is back projection). For radiography (includingdual-energy medical imaging, or material-discrimination (MD) securityimaging, X represents a map of total projected material, and P istypically either the identity P=I or a simple resampling operator or asimple linear blur. The co values are relative weights for each of thethree terms.

When V is a Jacobian-based regularizer, one can rewrite Equation 5 as

$\begin{matrix}{{{\underset{X_{p},X_{v},X_{c},X_{r}}{minimize}\omega_{p}{L\left( X_{p} \right)}} + {\omega_{v}{R\left( X_{v} \right)}} + {\omega_{c}{C\left( X_{c} \right)}}}{{{{subject}\mspace{14mu}{to}\mspace{14mu} X_{p}} = {PX}_{r}},{X_{v} = {HX}_{r}},{X_{c} = {QX}_{r}}}} & (6)\end{matrix}$where:

subscripts r, p, v, and c stand for reconstruction, projection,variation, and constraints;

X, is the reconstructed image, which is the same as X from Equation 5;

X_(p) is the projected data;

X_(v) is the gradient of the reconstructed image;

X_(c) is the constrained image;

H is a gradient (or extended gradient) operator applied to each channel(so HX_(r) is an image Jacobian);

${R\left( X_{v} \right)} = {\sum\limits_{x}\;{\phi\left( {X_{v}(x)} \right)}}$for some matrix penalty φ so that V(X)=R(HX), where nuclear norm φ=∥·∥*is a good choice;

Q is a helper transform (or matrix) to help C have convenient structure(in many cases this may just be the identity Q=I, where in practice Q isessentially omitted from the implementation);

C is chosen so that C(X)=C(QX), and C is an indicator for whether everypixel is a member of some set S, so C(Y)=Σ_(x)ι_(S)(Y(x)) whereι_(S)(y)=0 when yεS and ∞ otherwise.

Equation 6, in turn, can be written as a special case of the generalizedsplit problem

$\begin{matrix}{{{\underset{x_{0},\ldots,x_{N}}{minimize}{\sum\limits_{i = 0}^{N}\;{f_{i}\left( x_{i} \right)}}}{{{subject}\mspace{14mu}{to}\mspace{14mu} A_{i}x_{i}} + {B_{i}x_{0}} + c} = {0{\forall{i \in {1\text{:}N}}}}},} & (7)\end{matrix}$where in our casex₀=X_(r), x₁=X_(p), x₂=X_(v), x₃=X_(c), f₀=0, f₁=ω_(p)l, f₂=ω_(v)R,f₃=ω_(c)C, A₁=I, A₂=I, A₃=I, B₁=−P, B₂=−H, B₃=−Q.  (8)

There are several primal dual algorithms available in the literaturethat are appropriate for solving problems such as this, includingArrow-Hurwicz, Bermudez-Moreno/Chambolle algorithm, FISTA, Chambolle &Pock's method, split Bregman methods, or alternating direction method ofmultipliers (ADMM). We will consider here the use of ADMM and inparticular the use of ADMM for regularized material reconstruction.

1. Initialize

-   (a) Choose some values for ρ_(p), ρ_(v), ρ_(c).-   (b) Set X_(r) to be some initial guess. (Either a good guess using    existing algorithms that are fast but less accurate, or a very    simple guess (that might be terrible) like all zeros).-   (c) Set λ_(p), λ_(v), and λ_(c) to be images of all zeros.-   (d) Choose ζ=1 for unaccelerated ADMM, or 1<ζ<2 for accelerated    ADMM.

2. Set up proximal points for separate problems

$\begin{matrix}{Y_{p} = {{PX}_{r} - {\frac{1}{\rho_{p}}\lambda_{p}}}} & (9) \\{Y_{v} = {{HX}_{r} - {\frac{1}{\rho_{v}}\lambda_{v}}}} & (10) \\{Y_{c} = {{QX}_{r} - {\frac{1}{\rho_{c}}\lambda_{c}}}} & (11)\end{matrix}$

3. Do these steps independently for each pixel, where “prox” is Moreauproximal mapping, and Π_(S) is projection onto the set S:X _(p)≈prox_(l) ^(ρ) ^(p) ^(ω) ^(p) (Y _(p))  (12)X _(v)=prox_(φ) ^(ρ) ^(v) ^(/ω) ^(v) (Y _(c))  (13)X _(c)=Π_(S)(Y _(c))  (14)

4. Set up proximal points for the fusion problem

$\begin{matrix}{Z_{p} = {{{- \zeta}\; X_{p}} + {\left( {1 - \zeta} \right){PX}_{r}} - {\frac{1}{\rho_{p}}\lambda_{p}}}} & (15) \\{Z_{v} = {{{- \zeta}\; X_{v}} + {\left( {1 - \zeta} \right){HX}_{r}} - {\frac{1}{\rho_{v}}\lambda_{v}}}} & (16) \\{Z_{c} = {{{- \zeta}\; X_{c}} + {\left( {1 - \zeta} \right){QX}_{r}} - {\frac{1}{\rho_{p}}\lambda_{c}}}} & (17)\end{matrix}$

5. Then perform these global/fusion steps

$\begin{matrix}{{\hat{X}}_{r} \approx {{argmin}\left( {{\frac{\rho_{p}}{2}{{{PX} + Z_{p}}}^{2}} + {\frac{\rho_{v}}{2}{{{HX} + Z_{v}}}^{2}} + {\frac{\rho_{c}}{2}{{{QX} + Z_{c}}}^{2}}} \right)}} & (18) \\{\mspace{79mu}{\lambda_{p} = {\lambda_{p} + {\rho_{p}\left( {{\zeta\; X_{p}} - {\left( {\zeta - 1} \right){PX}_{r}} - {P{\hat{X}}_{r}}} \right)}}}} & (19) \\{\mspace{79mu}{\lambda_{v} = {\lambda_{v} + {\rho_{v}\left( {{\zeta\; X_{v}} - {\left( {\zeta - 1} \right){HX}_{r}} - {H{\hat{X}}_{r}}} \right)}}}} & (20) \\{\mspace{79mu}{\lambda_{c} = {\lambda_{c} + {\rho_{c}\left( {{\zeta\; X_{c}} - {\left( {\zeta - 1} \right){QX}_{r}} - {Q{\hat{X}}_{r}}} \right)}}}} & (21) \\{\mspace{79mu}{X_{r} = {\hat{X}}_{r}}} & (22)\end{matrix}$

Repeat steps 2 through 5.

To solve Equation 12 above, a simple solution is to apply a fewiterations of the conjugate gradient (CG) method, so for each pixel

$\begin{matrix}{X_{p} = {{{minimize}_{x}^{CG}\omega_{p}{\ell(X)}} + {\frac{\rho_{p}}{2}{{{X - Y_{p}}}^{2}.}}}} & (23)\end{matrix}$Another option is to perform a damped Newton iteration, by replacingEquation 12 with

$\begin{matrix}{X_{p} \approx {{{minimize}_{X}\omega_{p}{\ell(X)}} + {\frac{\rho_{p}}{2}{{X - Y_{p}}}^{2}} + {\frac{\gamma}{2}{{X - X_{p}^{prev}}}^{2}}}} & (24)\end{matrix}$whose solution is

$\begin{matrix}{g^{n} = {{\nabla\left( {{\omega_{p}{\ell\left( X_{p}^{n} \right)}} + {\frac{\rho_{p}}{2}{{X_{p}^{n} - Y_{p}}}^{2}}} \right)} = {{\omega_{p}{\nabla{\ell\left( X_{p}^{n} \right)}}} + {\rho_{p}\left( {X_{p}^{n} - Y_{p}} \right)}}}} & (25) \\{H^{n} = {{{Hessian}\left( {{\omega_{p}{\ell(X)}} + {\frac{\rho_{p}}{2}{{X\_ Y}_{p}}^{2}}} \right)} = {{\omega_{p}{\nabla^{2}{\ell(X)}}} + {\rho_{p}I}}}} & (26) \\{X_{p}^{n + 1} = {X_{p}^{n} - {\left( {H^{n} + {\gamma^{n}I}} \right)^{- 1}\left( {g_{n} + {\gamma^{n}\left( {X - X_{p}^{prev}} \right)}} \right)}}} & (27)\end{matrix}$

This is nicely parallelizable since one can have a different γ for eachpixel. If (H^(n)+γ^(n)I) becomes noninvertible, one can increase γ (say,by a factor of 10) for that pixel. Otherwise, one can decrease γ by asmall amount every iteration (say, multiply by 0.9). One skilled inthese arts can readily employ code to calculate H for multi-spectralpolychromatic Poisson log-likelihood that performs the abovecalculations. The parallel nature of the computations make them wellsuited for implementation on a standard graphics processing unit (GPU),for example by using the compute unified device architecture (CUDA)platform from nVidia corporation. Such an approach can easilyaccommodate tens or hundreds of energy bins, as well as materialdescriptors of relatively arbitrary dimension.

By one approach the code can be written (say, in CUDA) with a hard-codedmaterial dimension. By another approach, the code can be written to usea user-provided material dimension, so that the same code is applicableto a wider range of applications and settings. In this latter approach,it can be advantageous to write low-level code (say, CUDA device code)that specifies the material descriptor dimension as a template parameter(using standard C++ templates), but then higher level code (say, CPUcode) that dynamically chooses which pre-compiled version of thelower-level code to call. This approach gives the best of both worlds,as the low-level code is actually compiled separately and optimizedseparately for each material-dimension size, so for small materialdimensions the calculations can take place mostly in registers or localcache, but yet the high-level code still offers flexibility to an enduser.

In practice, this approach can be used to make good use of CUDA registerspace for material dimensions of 10 or less, and possibly even higher.Thus for typical applications with a modest number of modalities, mostof the math is done in registers or local cache and it is therefore veryfast as compared to comparable (or even less serviceable) prior artapproaches.

An alternate strategy would be to use surrogate functions to solveEquation 12. In particular, parabolic or paraboloid surrogates (as knownin the art) can be very efficient.

To solve Equation 13, one can apply proximal mapping. A useful class ofmatrix-penalties are Schatten norms, which can be calculated by firstcalculating the singular values of a matrix, then taking theconventional vector norm of the vector of singular values. In light ofthe present teachings there are three particularly interesting Schattennorms to use as φ. The Schatten 1-norm is also commonly called nuclearnorm, and is a good choice for φ, in which case we refer to the functionR as Total Nuclear Variation (TNV). The Schatten 2-norm is also commonlycalled Frobenius norm, and when it is used for 0 we call the function RTotal Frobenius Variation (TFV). The Schatten co-norm is also commonlycalled spectral norm, operator 2-norm, or induced 2-norm, and when it isused for φ we call the function R Total Spectral Variation (TSV). For1-dimensional Jacobians, the solution to (13) for any Schatten norm is

$\begin{matrix}{X_{v} = \left\{ \begin{matrix}{\frac{Y_{v}}{Y_{v}}\left( {{Y_{v}} - \frac{\rho_{v}}{\omega_{v}}} \right)} & {{{{if}\mspace{14mu}{Y_{v}}} > \frac{\rho_{v}}{\omega_{v}}},} \\0 & {{{if}\mspace{14mu}{Y_{v}}} \leq {\frac{\rho_{v}}{\omega_{v}}.}}\end{matrix} \right.} & (28)\end{matrix}$

For higher dimensional matrices, for TFV regularization, the prox map isessentially the same as Equation 28, just using a Frobenius norm. ForTNV regularization (which may be preferred for many applicationsettings), the update can be performed as follows. Say that Y is M×N,where one of the two dimensions (M or N) corresponds to the dimension ofthe material descriptors (or equivalently, the number ofimage-representation channels, or equivalently, the number of materialbases), and the other dimension corresponds to spatial direction (i.e.,2 for 2D imaging and a standard gradient, 3 for 3D imaging with astandard gradient, or larger numbers when using extended gradients).Note that the implementation below applies regardless of which dimensionis which.

In any case, we begin by calculating matrices U, S, V where U and V areorthogonal matrices containing the singular vectors of Y, and S is thesingular values of Y, so if we express S as a diagonal matrix then Y=U SV^(t). The first step is to calculate the minimal symmetric matrix. IfN≦M, this is A=(Y^(t)Y). If M≦N, this is A=(Y Y^(t)). If M=N, use eitherform. Note that A is now a square matrix of size min(M,N).

The next step is to find the eigenvalues of A. This is well-known in theart, and for small dimensions has especially efficient solutions basedon the characteristic polynomial. When A is 1×1, there is a singleeigenvalue which is simply equal to A. When A is 2×2, the characteristicpolynomial is a quadratic equation, and thus the two eigenvalues can beefficiently found through the quadratic formula, which is a simpleclosed-form expression that is known in the art. Similarly, when A is3×3, the three eigenvalues can be found by solving a cubic equation, andwhen A is 4×4, the four eigenvalues can be found by solving a quarticequation. While less common than the quadratic formula, cubic equationsand quartic equations also have efficient closed-form solutions known inthe art. There are also more general methods known in the art that applyto square matrices of any size.

The next step is to take the square roots of the eigenvectors—thisyields the singular values of Y. The next step is then to find theeigenvectors. First we find the smaller set of eigenvectors by using theCayley-Hamilton theorem, and next we find the larger set of eigenvectorsby factoring the singular-value decomposition. That is, if we choseA=(Y^(t) Y) then we solve for V using the Cayley-Hamilton theorem, andthen calculate U=Y V S⁻¹Alternatively, if we chose A=(Y Y^(t)) then wesolve for U using the Cayley-Hamilton theorem, and then calculate V=Y US⁻¹.

Once the singular-value decomposition is available, we apply a shrinkageoperator to the singular values, so

S - { S  S  ⁢ (  S  - ρ v ) if ⁢ ⁢  S  > ρ v ω v , 0 if ⁢ ⁢  S  ≤ ρ vω v .

Lastly, the solution to Equation 13 is found by X_(v)=U Ŝ V^(t). Whilethese steps may seem complicated, in practice, they can be calculatedvery efficiently.

In particular, consider when min(M,N)=2, which involves the quadraticsolution. This corresponds to the case of 2D imaging (i.e. conventionalradiography or 2D CT) with a conventional gradient and with materialdescriptors of any dimension (i.e. of dimension 2 or larger). It alsocorresponds to the case of 3D (or higher) CT reconstruction of 2Dmaterial descriptors (which are typical for dual energy), whether usingconventional or extended gradients. It also corresponds to the case of2D imaging with an extended gradient and 2D material descriptors. In theexample where M=2 and then the steps to solve (13) for some pixel are:

$\begin{matrix}{z = Y_{v}} & (29) \\{G\overset{def}{=}{zz}^{t}} & (30) \\{{\xi\overset{def}{=}\sqrt{\left( {g_{11} - g_{22}} \right)^{2} + {4\; g_{12}^{2}}}},} & (31) \\{{{S(1)} = \sqrt{\frac{1}{2}\left( {g_{11} + g_{22} + \xi} \right)}},} & (32) \\{{{S(2)} = \sqrt{\frac{1}{2}\left( {g_{11} + g_{22} - \xi} \right)}},} & (33) \\\begin{matrix}{u_{11} = \left\{ \begin{matrix}\sqrt{\frac{g_{11} - g_{22} + \xi}{2\;\xi}} & {{{{if}\mspace{14mu}\xi} \neq 0},} \\1 & {{{{if}\mspace{14mu}\xi} = 0},}\end{matrix} \right.} & {u_{21} = \left\{ \begin{matrix}\frac{g_{12}}{u_{11}\xi} & {{{{if}\mspace{14mu}\xi} \neq 0},} \\0 & {{{{if}\mspace{14mu}\xi} = 0},}\end{matrix} \right.} \\{{u_{12} = u_{21}},} & {{u_{22} = {- u_{11}}},}\end{matrix} & (34) \\{V = {z^{t}{US}^{- 1}}} & (35) \\{\hat{S} = \left\{ \begin{matrix}{\frac{S}{S}\left( {{S} - \frac{\rho_{v}}{\omega_{v}}} \right)} & {{{{if}\mspace{14mu}{S}} > \frac{\rho_{v}}{\omega_{v}}},} \\0 & {{{{if}\mspace{14mu}{S}} \leq \frac{\rho_{v}}{\omega_{v}}},}\end{matrix} \right.} & (36) \\{X_{v} = {U\hat{S}{V^{t}.}}} & (37)\end{matrix}$

The foregoing can be done quite efficiently. Furthermore, it may beperformed independently for each pixel, with almost no “if” statements,so one skilled in the art can implement Equation 13 in a highly parallelfashion which is well-suited to implementation on commodity GPU cards.While the cubic and quartic solutions (for min(M,N)=3 or 4) areconsiderably more complicated than the above, they also are verywell-suited to efficient parallel implementations in CUDA. Since CUDA'stexture units additionally offer native support for 2D and 3D imageswhere each pixel is up to a 4D vector, the entire system can beespecially optimized for imaging with up to 4-dimensional materialdescriptors.

Additionally note that the bulk of the processing work is generally forthe singular-value factoring, whose dimension is limited by min(M,N).Thus, if the material descriptor dimension is 4 or less, then the numberof spatial-directions can be much larger (for example, 20 or more) withan additional computational cost that is relatively small. Conveniently,this makes large extended Jacobians reasonable to use in practice.

Note that the above approach can also be extended to any Schatten normby using the appropriate shrinkage operator. It can also be extended toany conventional vector-penalty applied to the singular values of theJacobian by replacing the above shrinkage operator with the appropriateproximal mapping for the desired vector-penalty.

To solve Equation 14 one can perform a projection onto the set S. Oftenthis has very simple solutions. For example, if we want to enforce anon-negativity constraint so that X_(c)(i)≧0 for all i, then S is theset of vectors whose components are all non-negative, or equivalentlyS={x:x(i)≧0∀i}. In this case, Equation 14 simply becomes

$\begin{matrix}{{X_{c}(i)} = \left\{ {\begin{matrix}{{Y_{c}(i)},} & {{{if}\mspace{14mu}{Y_{c}(i)}} \geq 0} \\0 & {{{if}\mspace{14mu}{Y_{c}(i)}} \leq 0}\end{matrix}{\forall{i.}}} \right.} & (38)\end{matrix}$

More generally one might desire the constraint BX_(c)>0 for some matrixB. In this case, to implement Equation 14 there are known algorithms forprojecting a vector onto a set of hyperplanes. Alternatively, one canmove B into the matrix Q so that C becomes a simple non-negativityconstraint, which saves computations, but consumes more memory (if BX islarger than X) and will make Equation 18 more complicated.

Note that if constraints are not used, or if they can be incorporatedinto the log-likelihood term, then one can simply set ω_(c)=ρ_(c)=0 andomit steps (11), (14), (17), and (21) and drop the last term fromEquation 18.

To solve Equation 18 the approach depends greatly on the projectionoperator, i.e. on whether we are performing radiography or CT. The naïvesolution is{circumflex over (X)} _(r)=−(ρ_(p) P ^(t) P+ρ _(v) H ^(t) H+ρ _(c) Q^(t) Q)⁻¹(ρ_(p) P ^(t) Z _(p)+ρ_(v) H ^(t) Z _(v)+ρ_(c) Q ^(t) Z_(c)).  (39)The matrix inversion, however, can benefit from some additionalconsideration. There are several approaches to solving Equation 18 or 39at least approximately.

One approach is to solve Equation 39 exactly by using a discrete cosinetransformation (DCT). This approach is suitable each of the operators P,H, and Q are equivalent to convolution operations. In this case,Equation 39 can be solved exactly using a DCT, which yields symmetricboundary conditions (Equation 39 can also be solved using a fast Fouriertransform, but that gives cyclic boundary conditions, which aretypically less desirable). To solve Equation 39, the following can berepeated independently for each material dimension.

The DCT version assumes that P is a convolution with a blur kernel b(which may be different for each material dimension), H is a set ofconvolutions with kernels h₁, . . . h_(n) (one for each spatialdirection), and that Q=I. The update (for each material dimension) is

$\begin{matrix}{{\hat{X}}_{r} = {D^{- 1}\left\{ {F^{- 1}D\left\{ {{\rho_{p}Z_{p}*\overset{\sim}{b}} + {\rho_{c}Z_{c}} + {\rho_{v}{\sum\limits_{j}\;{Z_{v}*{\overset{\sim}{h}}_{j = 1}^{n}}}}} \right\}} \right\}}} & (40)\end{matrix}$where {tilde over (b)} and {tilde over (h)} are symmetric reflections ofb and h, and D is the type-II DCT, and

$\begin{matrix}{F = {D_{I}\left\{ {{\rho_{p}{{orth}\left( {b*\overset{\sim}{b}} \right)}} + {\rho_{c}\delta} + {\rho_{v}{\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{n}\;{{orth}\left( {h_{j}*{\overset{\sim}{h}}_{j}} \right)}}}} \right\}}} & (41)\end{matrix}$where D_(I) is the type-I DCT, orth means take one orthant of thesignal, and δ is a kronecker delta function. Note that F⁻¹ can beprecomputed once during the initialization phase. If the ρ values changeduring the course of the optimization, the separate components of F canstill be precomputed during initialization. Since this approach solvesEquation 39 exactly, it is the optimal approach in terms of minimizingthe total number of iterations of Equations 9-22. This approach can beparticularly effective for radiography, where the projection operator Pis commonly either the identity mapping or it only applies a simplelinear blur (to model the detector point spread function).

A second approach is Bregman operator splitting (BOS) as known in theart, where one replaces the matrix inversion in Equation 39 with asimple uniform scaling.

$\begin{matrix}{{\hat{X}}_{r} = {{- \frac{1}{\alpha}}\left( {{\rho_{p}P^{t}Z_{p}} + {\rho_{v}H^{t}Z_{v}} + {\rho_{c}Q^{t}Z_{c}}} \right)}} & (42)\end{matrix}$where α is chosen to be at least as big as the operator norm of thematrix inside the inversion in Equation 39. If P=I and Q=I thenα=ρ_(p)+ρ_(c)+4nρ_(r) is a good choice.

Under the same assumptions as Equation 40, i.e. when P is a blur withkernel b, H is a set of convolutions with kernels h₁, . . . h_(n), andQ=I, then Equation 42 becomes

$\begin{matrix}{{\hat{X}}_{r} = {{- \frac{1}{\alpha}}{\left( {{\rho_{p}Z_{p}*\overset{\sim}{b}} + {\rho_{c}Z_{c}} + {\rho_{v}{\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{n}\;{Z_{v}*{\overset{\sim}{h}}_{j}}}}} \right).}}} & (43)\end{matrix}$

Conveniently however, Equation 42 does not carry the same restrictions(or assumptions) as Equation 40. That is, Equation 42 can be used forarbitrary P, H, or Z operators. In particular, Equation 42 can be usedfor tomography where P is a forward-projection operator. Equation 42 canalso be applied to radiography or other reconstruction tasks with othertypes of P or Q mappings, such as if P also includes a resamplingoperator or missing data, or if Q couples different spectral channels.Note that if H is convolutions with a set of h kernels, then Equation 42becomes

$\begin{matrix}{{\hat{X}}_{r} = {{- \frac{1}{\alpha}}{\left( {{\rho_{p}P^{t}Z_{p}} + {\rho_{c}Q^{t}Z_{c}} + {\rho_{v}{\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{n}\;{Z_{v}*{\overset{\sim}{h}}_{j}}}}} \right).}}} & (44)\end{matrix}$

In general, this approach is useful for CT reconstruction; forradiography with complicated P, Q, or H operators; or for radiographywith simple operators but where a DCT is too expensive to implement (interms of effort, computational time, or required computationalresources).

Another approach, specifically for CT reconstruction, is to use analyticCT reconstruction theory. It is known in the art that if P is aforward-projection operator (so P^(t) is a back-projection operator),then (P^(t) P) is at least approximately equivalent (or exactlyequivalent, in the continuous limit) to convolution with the function1/|f|, where f is frequency. Using that, Equation 39 can be solved by

${\hat{X}}_{r} = {{- F^{- 1}}\left\{ {\beta\; F\left\{ {{\rho_{p}P^{t}Z_{p}} + {\rho_{c}Z_{c}} + {\rho_{v}{\sum\limits_{j}\;{Z_{v}*{\overset{\sim}{h}}_{j}}}}} \right\}} \right\}}$where

F is the Fourier transform (typically a fast Fourier transform (FFT));

${\beta = \frac{f}{\rho_{r} + {f} + {{f}{\sum\limits_{j}{{F{\{\}}}}^{2}}}}};$and in practice, β can be pre-computed during initialization. To preventartifacts, the terms can also be adjust with some custom filter orapodization window, as are known in the art.

This approach requires good sampling and is not suitable for sparsemeasurement data, and it also risks noise amplification and truncationissues, but when those downsides are manageable, this approach canpotentially reduce the number of iterations required for CT relative tosome other alternatives.

Yet another approach is to use conventional continuous optimizationtechniques on Equation 18. For example, define

$\begin{matrix}{{q(X)}\overset{def}{=}{{\frac{\rho_{p}}{2}{{{PX} + Z_{p}}}^{2}} + {\frac{\rho_{v}}{2}{{{HX} + Z_{v}}}^{2}} + {\frac{\rho_{c}}{2}{{{{QX} + Z_{c}}}^{2}.}}}} & (45)\end{matrix}$then

$\begin{matrix}{{\hat{X}}_{r} \approx {\arg\;{\min\limits_{X}{q(X)}}}} & (46)\end{matrix}$which can be performed with gradient descent (or conjugate gradients) bynoting that∇q=p _(p) P ^(t)(PX +Z _(p))+ρ_(v) H ^(t)(HX+Z _(v))+rho _(c) Q^(t)(QX+Z _(c))  (47)or a Newton or quasi-Newton method by also noting that∇² q=ρ _(p) P ^(t) P+ρ _(v) H ^(t) H+ρ _(c) Q ^(t) Q.  (48)

Those skilled in the art will recognize that a wide variety ofmodifications, alterations, and combinations can be made with respect tothe above described embodiments without departing from the scope of theinvention, and that such modifications, alterations, and combinationsare to be viewed as being within the ambit of the inventive concept.Some useful examples in these regards may be found in one or more of thefollowing patent applications/patents, the contents of which are herebyfully incorporated herein in their entirety by this reference: U.S.patent application Ser. No. 13/277,833 filed Oct. 20, 2011; U.S. patentapplication Ser. No. 13/630,269 filed Sep. 28, 2012; U.S. Pat. No.8,422,826 which issued Mar. 27, 2013; U.S. Pat. No. 8,184,769 whichissued May 22, 2011; and U.S. Pat. No. 8,508,545 which issued Aug. 13,2013.

As a more specific example in these regards these teachings willaccommodate further employing third image-capture data regarding thescene that is formed using a third image-capture modality that isdifferent from the first image-capture modality and the secondimage-capture modality, wherein the aforementioned fidelity errormeasure further measures the inconsistency of the image as compared tothe third image-capture data. As a similar related example, theseteachings will also accommodate establishing a thirdimage-representation channel, and then measuring the inconsistency ofthe image by also measuring the inconsistency of the image as comparesto third image-representation channel data and scoring the image basedon a priori likelihood or desirability by scoring an image that furthercomprises third image-representation channel data.

What is claimed is:
 1. An apparatus for reconstructing an image usinghigh energy-based data regarding a scene, the apparatus comprising: adata interface configured to provide access to: first image-capture dataregarding the scene formed using a first image-capture modality; secondimage-capture data regarding the scene formed using a secondimage-capture modality that is different from the first image-capturemodality; a control circuit operably coupled to the data interface andconfigured to execute an iterative image reconstruction process by, atleast in part: establishing a first image-representation channel;establishing a second image-representation channel; establishing afidelity error measure that, for any image containing firstimage-representation channel data and second image-representationchannel data, measures inconsistency of the image as compared to thefirst image-capture data and the second image-capture data; establishinga prior-penalty term that, for any image containing firstimage-representation channel data and second image-representationchannel data, scores the image based on a priori likelihood ordesirability using, at least in part, for each of a plurality of pixelsfor that image that contains the first image-representation channel dataand the second image-representation channel data, a non-separablematrix-penalty of a Jacobian-matrix of the image at that pixel; using aniterative process to generate a reconstructed image for which thereconstructed image at least approximately minimizes a combination ofthe fidelity error measure and the prior-penalty term.
 2. The apparatusof claim 1 wherein the first image-capture modality comprises using afirst level of x-ray energy and the second image-capture modalitycomprises using a second level of x-ray energy that is substantiallydifferent from the first level of x-ray energy.
 3. The apparatus ofclaim 1 wherein the control circuit is configured to generate thereconstructed image by, at least in part, using the firstimage-representation channel and the second image-representation channelto evaluate individual pixels in the image-representation data withrespect to statistical likelihood.
 4. The apparatus of claim 1 whereinthe control circuit is configured to evaluate the individual pixels by,at least in part, assessing a gradient for at least some of theindividual pixels as compared to their corresponding neighboring pixels.5. The apparatus of claim 4 wherein the gradient is an extendedgradient.
 6. The apparatus of claim 4 wherein the control circuit isconfigured to generate the reconstructed image by, at least in part,calculating a function of both the gradient as corresponds to the firstimage-representation channel for a given pixel and the gradient ascorresponds to the second image-representation channel for the samegiven pixel.
 7. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the non-separablematrix-penalty of the Jacobian-matrix is a function of singular valuesof the Jacobian-matrix.
 8. The apparatus of claim 7 wherein the functionof the singular values of the Jacobian-matrix is a nuclear norm.
 9. Theapparatus of claim 1 further comprising: third image-capture dataregarding the scene formed using a third image-capture modality that isdifferent from the first image-capture modality and the secondimage-capture modality; wherein the fidelity error measure furthermeasures the inconsistency of the image as compared to the thirdimage-capture data.
 10. The apparatus of claim 1 further comprising:establishing a third image-representation channel; wherein measuring theinconsistency of the image further comprises measuring the inconsistencyof the image as compares to third image-representation channel data; andwherein scoring the image based on a priori likelihood or desirabilityfurther comprises scoring an image that further comprises thirdimage-representation channel data.
 11. The apparatus of claim 1 whereinthe first image-representation channel comprises a first material basisand the second image-representation channel comprises a second materialbasis.
 12. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the control circuit isfurther configured to: establish a first material basis; establish asecond material basis; wherein the first image-representation channeldescribes image data as relates to the first material basis and thesecond image-representation channel describes image data as relates tothe second material basis.
 13. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein theiterative process comprises an iterative statistical reconstructionprocess.
 14. The apparatus of claim 13 wherein the iterative statisticalimage reconstruction process comprises a computed tomographyreconstruction process.
 15. The apparatus of claim 13 wherein theiterative statistical image reconstruction process comprises aradiography-image reconstruction process.
 16. A method by which acontrol circuit reconstructs an image using high energy-based dataregarding a scene, the method including an iterative imagereconstruction process that comprises: by the control circuit: accessingfirst image-capture data regarding the scene formed using a firstimage-capture modality; accessing second image-capture data regardingthe scene formed using a second image-capture modality that is differentfrom the first image-capture modality; establishing a firstimage-representation channel; establishing a second image-representationchannel; establishing a fidelity error measure that, for any imagecontaining first image-representation channel data and secondimage-representation channel data, measures inconsistency of the imageas compared to the first image-capture data and the second image-capturedata; establishing a prior-penalty term that, for any image containingfirst image-representation channel data and second image-representationchannel data, scores the image based on a priori likelihood ordesirability using, at least in part, for each of a plurality of pixelsfor that image that contains the first image-representation channel dataand the second image-representation channel data, a non-separablematrix-penalty of a Jacobian-matrix of the image at that pixel; using aniterative process to generate a reconstructed image for which thereconstructed image at least approximately minimizes a combination ofthe fidelity error measure and the prior-penalty term.
 17. The method ofclaim 16 wherein the non-separable matrix-penalty of the Jacobian-matrixis a function of singular values of the Jacobian-matrix.
 18. The methodof claim 17 wherein the function of the singular values of theJacobian-matrix is a nuclear norm.
 19. The method of claim 16 whereinthe first image-representation channel comprises a first material basisand the second image-representation channel comprises a second materialbasis.
 20. The method of claim 16 further comprising assessing agradient for at least some of the individual pixels as compared to theircorresponding neighboring pixels.
 21. The method of claim 20 furthercomprising calculating a function of both the gradient as corresponds tothe first image-representation channel for a given pixel and thegradient as corresponds to the second image-representation channel forthe same given pixel.